[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] The multiple overlapping senses of joint action.
Ken I was NOT addressing trust in the write up on joint action. I think that there are genuinely two different notions of action: the action that individual actors perform (including cutting down trees) and the actions that they perform severally. I think that getting clarity about the relationship between communicative actions and service actions is extremely beneficial. Seeing the two side-by-side as it were solves an important architectural problem. I admit that I fail to see why you cannot see that. Remember that the purpose of interacting with services is to get things done. But, as anyone who attends a lot of meetings will understand, talking about solving problems is not the same thing as actually solving them. Frank On Jul 21, 2009, at 6:28 AM, Laskey, Ken wrote: > Frank, > > Two points here: one for a clarification and the other still > questioning the necessity of the elaboration. > > First, if I cut down a tree, is there a joint action? There is > certainly a real world effect. > > I use this as my "action" scenario in order to avoid messages. > Message exchange seems to always require joint action -- the speaker > and the listener -- for anything to get done. The message exchange > is by construction a joint action, and all the other levels of > intent you mention often get masked. > > The concept of an action meant for different purposes is critical > for trust because the question comes down to whether the individual > intent of the parties will likely lead to acceptable RWEs, even if > the intents are somewhat different. > > This leads me to the second point: what of all this is required to > tell the story for the RA? Interaction is made up of joint actions, > but when is it not sufficient to talk about interaction? We seem to > do quite well in section 4, although it will take a bit of effort to > reconstruct what Jeff and I decided when we first had the action to > tackle this. As for trust, the initial write-up I did seemed to > capture more than some folks felt necessary, and it made no mention > of joint action. > > One of our principles is parsimony. I understand, although I still > have a few questions on, your elaboration of joint action. The > question is whether this is the most parsimonious way to tell the > story. Of more concern, will anyone not part of our discussion > understand it? > > Ken > > ________________________________________ > From: Francis McCabe [email@example.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 12:33 AM > To: firstname.lastname@example.org RA > Subject: [soa-rm-ra] The multiple overlapping senses of joint action. > > A joint action is a coordinated set of actions involving the efforts > of two or more actors to achieve an effect > > In any social context joint actions abound: people talking to each > other, people buying and selling, people arranging their lives. In > addition, joint action is at the heart of interactions within the > context of a SOA ecosystem. > > There is another sense in which joint actions abound: even within a > single incident of interaction there are typically several overlapping > joint actions. > > For example, when one person says to another: "it is stuffy in here" > there is an immediate sense in which there is a joint action -- a > joint communicative action. The intended effect being that the > listener believes that the speaker intends him to understand that the > speaker believes that the atmosphere is uncomfortable. (The listener > may also believe that the atmosphere *is* uncomfortable as a result of > the communication.) > > However, in the right context, there may be another joint action: the > apparent declaration may in fact be a command. The intent being that > the speaker wishes the listener to understand that the door should be > opened. > > There may be a further layer to this scenario: the speaker might be > aware that there is someone who is waiting to be let in. The command > to open the door is actually a command to admit the visitor to the > room. > > Fundamentally all three of these senses of joint action are > superimposed on top of each other. However, there is a strong sense in > which the different joint actions may be quite interchangeable. For > example, instead of declaring that the "room is stuffy", the speaker > might have simply said "open the door". Or the speaker might have said > "please let John in". In each case the effect would have been the same > -- modulo the sensitivities of the speaker and listener -- the door > being open and the visitor admitted to the room. > > The relationship between the communicative joint action: the utterance > of the declaration and the command joint action is a `uses' > relationship. The speaking joint action is used to convey the command > joint action; which in turn is used to convey the visitor admittance > action. > > In many situations the best predicate that describes the relationship > between these different joint actions is the 'counts as' predicate. > The utterance action counts as the command to open the door. The > command to open the door counts as the request to admit the visitor. > > It can be extremely useful to identify and separate the different > overlapping senses of joint action. It allows us to separately > describe and process the communicative actions from the command joint > actions. This, in turn, reflects the fact that each layer has its own > logic and ontology. > > For example, at the utterance level, the issues are to do with the > successful understanding of the content of the communication -- did > the listener hear and understand the words, did the speaker intend to > say them, and so on. > > At the level of the command to open the door, the issues center on > whether there is a predisposition on the part of the listener to obey > commands given to him by the speaker. > > In the context of a SOA ecosystem we can separately capture the logic > and mechanics of what is involved in electronic communication -- the > sending of messages, the security of the communication and so on; from > the logic and mechanics of command -- does the listener believe that > the speaker has the appropriate authority to issue the command. > > As with human communication, electronic interactions are similarly > interchangeable: the commitment to purchase a book requires some form > of communication between buyer and seller; but the purchase action > itself is unchanged by the use of email or an HTTP post of an XML > document. > > In summary, the concept of joint action allows us to honor the fact > that both parties in an interaction are required for there to be an > actual effect; it allows us to separate out the different levels of > the interaction into appropriate semantic layers; and it allows us to > recombine those layers in potentially different ways whilst still > achieving the intended real world effects of action in a SOA > ecosystem. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >